Beddow v Cayzer [2006] EWHC 557 (QB) (20 March 2006)

Beddow v Cayzer [2006] EWHC 557 (QB) (20 March 2006)

The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, there was no binding oral agreement between the claimant and the defendant guaranteeing the claimed shareholding; the evidence did not establish that the defendant was party to or bound by such an agreement, nor that he held shares on trust for the claimant.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 557 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Beddow; Defendant: Nigel Cayzer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/partnership Dispute) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements, Partnership Formation, Breach of Contract, Constructive Trust, Share Entitlement
Contract Law Partnership Law Equity Oral Agreements Partnership Formation Breach of Contract Constructive Trust Share Entitlement

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Beddow

Claimant

Nigel Cayzer

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/partnership Dispute) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an enforceable oral agreement existed between the parties regarding shareholding in the veterinary practices venture
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was party to or bound by any such agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendant held shares or entitlement on trust for the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, there was no binding oral agreement between the claimant and the defendant guaranteeing the claimed shareholding; the evidence did not establish that the defendant was party to or bound by such an agreement, nor that he held shares on trust for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for declaration of entitlement to shares and/or constructive trust is dismissed.
  • No order for specific performance or damages in favour of the claimant.